torts 2 lecture 2Ultrahazardous or Abnormally Dangerous Activities~Nuisance Flashcards
old rule
Proof of negligence is required unless . . .
The blast is accompanied by an actual physical invasion of the damaged property.
new rule
One who engages in blasting must assume responsibility, and be liable without fault, for any injury he causes to neighboring property.
What are “Abnormally Dangerous” Activities under the Restatement (Second) of Torts?, p. 589
A. Existence of a high degree of risk of some harm to the person, land or chattels of others;
B. Likelihood that the harm that results from it will be great;
C. Inability to eliminate the risk by the exercise of reasonable care;
D. Extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage;
E. Inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried on, and
F. Extent to which its value to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes.
Restatement (Third) of Torts: § 20. Abnormally Dangerous Activities, p. 591
An actor who carries on an abnormally dangerous activity is subject to strict liability for physical harm resulting from the activity.
An activity is abnormally dangerous if:
The activity creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors; and
The activity is not one of common usage.
strict liability and aircraft
Strict liability applies to ground damage from aircraft
“caused by the ascent, descent or flight of aircraft, or
By the dropping or falling of an object from the aircraft.”
for passengers generally safer than flying
are fireworks ultra hazardous?
“the general public enjoys fireworks displays to celebrate every July 4 [and] they are of some social utility to communities.”
elements for abnormally dangerous activity
A. Risk of harm great
B. Harm would be great
C. Accidents could not be prevented with exercise of due care
D. Activity not a matter of common usage
E. Activity is inappropriate to the place
what is nuisance
A “nontrespassory invasion of another’s interest in the private use and enjoyment of land.”
unreasonableness of intentional invasion?
An intentional invasion of another’s interest in the use and enjoyment of land is unreasonable if
(a) the gravity of the harm outweighs the utility of the actor’s conduct, or
(b) the harm caused by the conduct is serious and the financial burden of compensating for this and similar harm to others would not make the continuation of the conduct not reasonable.
facts in support of nuisance
Urban renewal
Property values were going up
Local ordinance
Requiring vacant building to be guarded or sealed
Nuisance?
Yes.
Property values had shown a marked increase, until defendant’s action (or inaction).
Damages
Measured by the loss in market value attributable to the defendant’s building.
what is the locality rule?
A use of property in one locality and under some circumstances may be lawful and reasonable, which, under other circumstances, would be unlawful, unreasonable and a nuisance.
building a new large building rules
There is no legal right to the free flow of light and air from the adjoining land.
Where a structure serves a useful and beneficial purpose,
It does not give rise to a cause of action,
Either for damages or for an injunction.
is this a spite fence?
Kuzniak v. Kozminski (Mich. 1895), note 4, p. 619
The defendant moved his coal and wood shed close to the plaintiff’s property line,
Where it blocked the light and air to plaintiff’s windows,
partly out of malice.
Not a “spite fence”
Why?
hog farming
Odors = nuisance But Collection of junk = nuisance Holding: The law of nuisance is not concerned with aesthetics
community intolerance
Trial court found that the local community was intolerant of the defendant’s activities.
Awarded plaintiffs $532,035.05
Lost rentals
Nuisance
Injunction (modified on appeal) against
Leaving unattended objects more than six feet in height within 40 feet of boundary line
Operating or causing to be operated a helicopter on his property or within zone of interest above property.
